https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151066 Repeated share transactions in 1943 and 1944 supported the finding that the assessee was carrying on share-dealing activity, so the challenge based on no evidence failed. For income-tax computation in 1945-46, prior treatment of the assessee as an investor did not bind the authorities because each assessment year is a separate unit and earlier assessments do not create res judicata or estoppel. Since the assessee was already a dealer before the opening day of the relevant account year, the profits on sale of shares were correctly computed on original cost rather than the market value at the start of the year, and the assessment was sustained. en-us Wed, 10 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151066 Repeated share transactions in 1943 and 1944 supported the finding that the assessee was carrying on share-dealing activity, so the challenge based on no evidence failed. For income-tax computation in 1945-46, prior treatment of the assessee as an investor did not bind the authorities because each assessment year is a separate unit and earlier assessments do not create res judicata or estoppel. Since the assessee was already a dealer before the opening day of the relevant account year, the profits on sale of shares were correctly computed on original cost rather than the market value at the start of the year, and the assessment was sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151066